"The fact that Jund is so popular right now piss me off too because I see soooo many bad or medium players trying to pilot our deck just because BBE was unbanned ..."
This is a pretty bad attitude. It's kind of reminds me of a hipster-like mentality- the thing that you liked (jund) became popular and a lot of people started to enjoy it- all of a sudden you start to hate those people because jund is mainstream now. Rather than focus on others, maybe you should focus on winning GPs and making the pro tour if you're so much better than everyone else who plays jund is.
The fact that Jund is so popular right now piss me off too because I see soooo many bad or medium players trying to pilot our deck just because BBE was unbanned ...
I think its great that we have many new active Jund players, always happy to see more activity in the threads I made primers for. Its one confirmation that the hard work was not worthless after all. I have to admit, in this regard I was pretty unlucky actually, since I literally took hold of the primer in January 2017, at which point Jund was on the decline. Am happy that beloved Junders kept the activity in this thread over this time on the other side. And now am even happier that the deck is in a good position again. Can't be more proud of the deck, the community and the activity it brings with it because of that.
What I find sad personally, is when now people begin to give wrong advice for newer players. Its not great because due to this, wrong strategies are spread. In that regard its sometimes rough that pros essentially and players with an active YouTube channel or whatever can have more impact than primers like this one.
I spent some time going over the 25 land with 5 manland builds - and notice that they all have access to only 17 black sources. Given how you have stated in the past that you do not feel comfortable going below 18 black sources, do you now feel otherwise?
I ask because recently I've been having opening hands with 2 ravines, 1 stomping ground or 1 ravine, 1 treetop, 1 blackcleave etc and never draw into my other black sources, stranding Liliana in hand. This despite me staying on a 18 black source landbase. And this is compounded if and when my opponents see that I have a black-light hand, and blow up that land accordingly.
Thus I am wary about cutting even more black sources.
"The fact that Jund is so popular right now piss me off too because I see soooo many bad or medium players trying to pilot our deck just because BBE was unbanned ..."
This is a pretty bad attitude. It's kind of reminds me of a hipster-like mentality- the thing that you liked (jund) became popular and a lot of people started to enjoy it- all of a sudden you start to hate those people because jund is mainstream now. Rather than focus on others, maybe you should focus on winning GPs and making the pro tour if you're so much better than everyone else who plays jund is.
"The fact that Jund is so popular right now piss me off too because I see soooo many bad or medium players trying to pilot our deck just because BBE was unbanned ..."
This is a pretty bad attitude. It's kind of reminds me of a hipster-like mentality- the thing that you liked (jund) became popular and a lot of people started to enjoy it- all of a sudden you start to hate those people because jund is mainstream now. Rather than focus on others, maybe you should focus on winning GPs and making the pro tour if you're so much better than everyone else who plays jund is.
Calm down, kid (you'll have a heart attack).
So, if I follow your lead, just people who win GP or PT are good players ?
That's not a lot of people ...
I've made my first Day 2 at GP and my first Pro Points some years ago, the hard way (with no Bye at this moment), with Jund which is the only deck I've played for the last 4 years (exception for GP Lyon, last month, during which I've played 5c Good Stuff for a 4-2 into 8-2 into 8-7 => I'm definitively not the best player of the world)
So, I just say it's sad to see so many players piloting my beloved deck which used to be based on skill and knowledge.
That's just my opinion and you don't have to be agree with me (it's called "democracy")
I spent some time going over the 25 land with 5 manland builds - and notice that they all have access to only 17 black sources. Given how you have stated in the past that you do not feel comfortable going below 18 black sources, do you now feel otherwise?
I ask because recently I've been having opening hands with 2 ravines, 1 stomping ground or 1 ravine, 1 treetop, 1 blackcleave etc and never draw into my other black sources, stranding Liliana in hand. This despite me staying on a 18 black source landbase. And this is compounded if and when my opponents see that I have a black-light hand, and blow up that land accordingly.
Thus I am wary about cutting even more black sources.
That is a valid point, and my opinion has not changed regarding that. I think 18 black sources is way better than only 17. With 25 lands, you have to make a couple of decisions: Do you want to flood less? Then 5 manlands is a good way to mitigate that. Do you want more black sources? Then maybe only play 4 manlands and include a 18th black source is a good idea. But then you would flood more.
One easy way to avoid this is trying out 24 lands with a lower curve. Thats what I am on currently, because I value the 18 black source as a minimum quite highly personally. If I would take it really seriously, actually 19 sources is needed for over 90 % consistancy.
If you going for 25 lands, want to mitigate flooding and still want to play 18 black sources, maybe this is a valid idea:
If you still want 4 basics, then maybe a third swamp is a good idea to run instead of Twilight Mire. In reality though, its tough to fulfill all requirements. You always have to sacrifice something in order to incoorporate other stuff.
Thanks, your list at the bottom would be the way to go in terms of ensuring both black sufficiency and flood protection. I am however much more comfortable on 4 basics now. I'll go for the 4 manland, 18 black source landbase myself as BBE has done wonders in putting all those unneeded lands to the bottom.
I ran the 24 land, 12 1-cmc spell build tonight at an event and I gotta say I dislike it now. In 8 games, I failed to hit 4 lands on turn 4 on 3 of them. That's almost 50% of the time and IMO unacceptable if BBE is needed to swing games. Not to mention that Scooze requires more lands in order to do its dirty business. I was always an advocate for 24 lands as I am greedy for more interaction but tonight I got punished by mana bottlenecks.
Giving it some thought, I may stick a Hazoret in the sideboard for long games. Apart from being a good finisher, she mitigates flood as well, just throw excess lands at their face. That way I can breathe easier playing only 4 manlands.
Do any of you have the deck foiled out? Or mixed foils? I've currently got scattered foils here and there due to card availability. I'dd say about 70% of the deck is unfoiled, and I'm debating whether I should downgrade the foils or slowly start upgrading the deck. Jund is the only deck I really like playing, and I've had it for a couple years now. But some of the foils are very expensive, and I don't know if there's any merit for it outside of some possible "intimidation" factor.
Do any of you have the deck foiled out? Or mixed foils? I've currently got scattered foils here and there due to card availability. I'dd say about 70% of the deck is unfoiled, and I'm debating whether I should downgrade the foils or slowly start upgrading the deck. Jund is the only deck I really like playing, and I've had it for a couple years now. But some of the foils are very expensive, and I don't know if there's any merit for it outside of some possible "intimidation" factor.
I think there's a few of us here the beauty of Jund in modern is that the cards are playable and good in all formats. So they'll be around for a long time. There's also no need to rush because modern is eternal. The investment is probably more sound than foiling most decks.
It's a long and hard journey; and in the end, foils play the same as non-foils. If you view the cards as JUST cards, I'd say just keep it non-foiled. If you're questioning if you should foil it out, you probably shouldn't.
Do any of you have the deck foiled out? Or mixed foils? I've currently got scattered foils here and there due to card availability. I'dd say about 70% of the deck is unfoiled, and I'm debating whether I should downgrade the foils or slowly start upgrading the deck. Jund is the only deck I really like playing, and I've had it for a couple years now. But some of the foils are very expensive, and I don't know if there's any merit for it outside of some possible "intimidation" factor.
I'm curious about the reason to ask this question. If you have a debate about foiling a very very very expensive deck out, don't do it. Foiling is entirely a money sink for no reason whatsoever beyond personal enjoyment of spending a lot of money on cards.
I had to resleeve my deck with new sleeves, and have to go through the process of uncurling some of them, since they can do that over time even with silica. Especially that BBE and Twilight Mire. It doesn't do that so much when sleeved.
What's your process for uncurling them?
I tried a few things.
I bought one of those gigantic silipackets and put my curled cards in a sealed tight container for a few weeks. It sucks the moisture out of them.
The problem I found with that is it'll bend the card backwards in an odd shape that can take a while to uncurl. I use it just a few hours to suck some moisture now
I took a risk to experiment on a way to uncurl cards by testing it on a cheap random foil:
I take a piece of paper, put a foil card face down, and have it hover over a stove at medium heat. You can literally see the card unbend and curl the opposite way. Double Sleeve it up quick and do that until you're done. Have your cards facing one another where it'll bend into one another. So, one card face up, one card face down, one card face up, etc...
Then you put it in a tight deck-box to the point you can barely squeeze another sleeved card in there (but don't force it, of course)
You'll have all those cards bending into one another to straighten it up in the process, too. Leave it there for a week---leaving it for less to get to your next FNM should be fine, too
It works pretty well. I saw some absurd methods on youtube, like ironing your cards and there was no way I was going to do something like that. There were some people who had luck leaving a card on a heater or whatever so it gave me the idea.
I've tried it on hundreds of cards.
It's only been unsuccessful on one card, and that wasn't on me. I received a foil Hazoret that came in curl. The card was bending inward from the heat, like---bad. I stuffed the card in a container with the giant silica and it still wasn't unbending. When I went to physically uncurl it I could tell the card wasn't in a good place, and I used enough force that it ripped in half.
My method probably won't save your card if it's severely curled, but if it's just a little curled, like in the picture of my unsleeved BBE or Twilight Mire, that method has worked. Test it on a cheap foil you don't care about if you're feeling nervous about it.
Interesting. That seems much faster than my method would be. I just stick two foils in a sleeve back-to-back and stick them in a cooler/refrigerator for a while with some sort of dehumidifying agent. The idea of applying heat never occurred to me as being safe.
I've got a question for you guys : what are your real feelings about BBE ?
Personally I find the card strong but we are no more in a proactive / reactive way to play our deck than we used to be.
I see so many streamers / players casting their BBE like : "Just turn the wheel and cross fingers to hit what we need" whereas we used to build our strategy and keep in hand needed cards for specific threats.
The fact that Jund is so popular right now piss me off too because I see soooo many bad or medium players trying to pilot our deck just because BBE was unbanned ...
I start to miss the era before unbanning when I played at a GP a T1 Raging Ravine then a T2 Dark Confidant, my opponent looked at me : "Oh ! Traditionnal Jund player still exist ?"
What are your thoughts about this statement ?
Gus
I like Bloodbraid Elf, but I gotta say, I have been thinking that we don't necessarily want four of them or that we should change the deck to be far more aggressive. I feel like the current versions are a bastard child of two different schools of thought.
That said, I don't mind that Jund has become popular again. I think people just find Bloodbraid Elf interesting. It may even be that RG decks are just more popular in general because of it instead of just Jund. That said, the number of questionable plays I've seen is kind of crazy. Some of it I believe is due to adjustments in a new metagame so not everyone is going to see things the same way. That said, I can understand why you feel frustrated. Sometimes, people get caught up too deep in thoughts that don't matter or just miss the obvious. It's just a strange time right now.
Do any of you have the deck foiled out? Or mixed foils? I've currently got scattered foils here and there due to card availability. I'dd say about 70% of the deck is unfoiled, and I'm debating whether I should downgrade the foils or slowly start upgrading the deck. Jund is the only deck I really like playing, and I've had it for a couple years now. But some of the foils are very expensive, and I don't know if there's any merit for it outside of some possible "intimidation" factor.
For most of the time that I have played Magic, I have detested foils. I know when it happened (still don't know why), but I just decided that I love Jund and Jeskai tempo so much that I started picking up random foils of them when I could. As some might point out, there's really no rational reason to do this. I just did because I don't see me not playing Jund or Jeskai ever again. I've played it in fields chock full of Eldrazi and E-Tron (even got lucky at a PPTQ!). If you do choose to foil it out though, wait for reasonable prices if you're straight up buying them, such as when Modern is out of season. You could also sell off other stuff via facebook, tcgplayer and ebay to convert other stuff you don't use towards getting the foils you want. Either way, it's going to be a while. I wouldn't rush it. Personally it's taken me about five years, and that was with some luck on some collections I bought.
I like Bloodbraid Elf, but I gotta say, I have been thinking that we don't necessarily want four of them or that we should change the deck to be far more aggressive. I feel like the current versions are a bastard child of two different schools of thought.
I don't think playing less than 4 copies is right. And I also don't think we need to adjust the deck to be more aggressive. If you look at Legacy Jund lists, you also won't find many aggressive elements in it. I know you can't compare the two, but you can definitely depict that the card in a vacuum doesn't demand aggressive support.
BBE is just the best card in so many matchups for us. Admitted against aggro/combo we dont want necessarily 4 copies, but we can adjust after SB. And if the meta starts to be aggro/combo only, then sure, it will be smart to go down on BBE copies.
But I like the appraoch EctoMark has addressed so far. Just be the Jund deck like we used to be all the time and have BBE as great CA engine which can also help closing out games. I did think from beginning on that doing drastic changes to the Jund deck due to BBE is not the best starting point to test. Besides the obvious changes (going up in Bolts and making room for BBE) I think just jamming in 4 BBEs turned out to be a pretty solid strategy, as opposed to some other opinions. In that sense, maybe it feels like a hybrid now, but if it works, why not?
I like Bloodbraid Elf, but I gotta say, I have been thinking that we don't necessarily want four of them or that we should change the deck to be far more aggressive. I feel like the current versions are a bastard child of two different schools of thought.
I don't think playing less than 4 copies is right. And I also don't think we need to adjust the deck to be more aggressive. If you look at Legacy Jund lists, you also won't find many aggressive elements in it. I know you can't compare the two, but you can definitely depict that the card in a vacuum doesn't demand aggressive support.
In that sense, maybe it feels like a hybrid now, but if it works, why not?
I play Legacy Jund. Trying to compare both lists is interesting and bad at the same time. There was a time recently where Bloodbraid Elf was cut from the main deck or some number were moved to the sideboard because it wasn't hefting it's weight.
To answer your last question: Personally, it's because I don't want and am not comfortable with "variance" from the "best" card in my deck.
To answer your last question: Personally, it's because I don't want and am not comfortable with "variance" from the "best" card in my deck.
So BBE hasnt been great for you on average? I know there is variance, but, for me, if the average is a little bit over the top and the worst case is just a hasty 3/2 creature it probably can still trade 1-for-1 (which is the baseline for our deck) I am more than happy. In that sense variance reaches from ok to insane. Also to add, we should not just use BBE as answers for opponents threats, unless we are in a desperate position and need a specific card to turn things around. In that sense the variance is also not very bothering, if you just don't rely on the cascade card too much.
I ran the 24 land, 12 1-cmc spell build tonight at an event and I gotta say I dislike it now. In 8 games, I failed to hit 4 lands on turn 4 on 3 of them. That's almost 50% of the time.
Not to call you out specifically here, wtyyy, but this is a perfect example of a fundamental problem with the 24/25 land discussion on this thread.
Probably, none of us have personal gameplay experience with a statistically significant sample size to say whether 24 or 25 lands are correct for BBE Jund. There's just no way to pull that kind of signal out of the variance noise, with a sample size of fewer than thousands of games. It's probably also worth mentioning that 3/8 is 37.5%, far closer to 1/3 than it is to 1/2. It is not correct (though it is totally understandable) to draw conclusions from one night's experience.
Frank Karsten has done the best work on this, as I'm sure most of us have heard. He can quantify--and has quantified--for us the chance that we'll play land #4 on T4. According to his data from his particular experimental conditions, the odds are:
24 lands: 80.6% on the draw / 71.3% on the play
25 lands: 83.5% on the draw / 74.7% on the play
So the 24/25 land delta is less than three percent. This means you'd expect it to matter exactly once every 33-34 games. How could we individual players observe this difference in practice? We can't, not really.
Add to this the fastland/tapland effect. In a 25 land build, a land you draw has a 4% chance to be any one of your specific land cards. If you run nine total T4 CIPT (comes into play tapped on T4) lands, then you have a base 8% higher chance to topdeck a land that doesn't help you on T4, compared to running the same list but only seven T4 CIPT lands. (Yes I get that 8% is actually incorrect but I am shortcutting here.) You can balance the types of lands you run against the number of lands you run, to get to your own target likelihood of landing BBE on turn 4.
The way I think one makes a case here, is to consider the data provided by large and carefully gathered data sets. All told, you could arguably change your odds of playing a BBE on T4 (assuming you have it in hand of course!) by roughly one game in every eight by going from one extreme (24 lands with nine T4 CIPT lands, which nobody actually runs) to the other (25 lands with seven T4 CIPT lands--nobody actually runs this either). Anyone who is between these extremes is making changes that definitely matter, for sure. But they are not making changes that will show up at FNM, or even more than once or twice during a 15 round GP.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ò,ó
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a pretty bad attitude. It's kind of reminds me of a hipster-like mentality- the thing that you liked (jund) became popular and a lot of people started to enjoy it- all of a sudden you start to hate those people because jund is mainstream now. Rather than focus on others, maybe you should focus on winning GPs and making the pro tour if you're so much better than everyone else who plays jund is.
I think its great that we have many new active Jund players, always happy to see more activity in the threads I made primers for. Its one confirmation that the hard work was not worthless after all. I have to admit, in this regard I was pretty unlucky actually, since I literally took hold of the primer in January 2017, at which point Jund was on the decline. Am happy that beloved Junders kept the activity in this thread over this time on the other side. And now am even happier that the deck is in a good position again. Can't be more proud of the deck, the community and the activity it brings with it because of that.
What I find sad personally, is when now people begin to give wrong advice for newer players. Its not great because due to this, wrong strategies are spread. In that regard its sometimes rough that pros essentially and players with an active YouTube channel or whatever can have more impact than primers like this one.
Thats a good rule of thumb. I agree with that.
I ask because recently I've been having opening hands with 2 ravines, 1 stomping ground or 1 ravine, 1 treetop, 1 blackcleave etc and never draw into my other black sources, stranding Liliana in hand. This despite me staying on a 18 black source landbase. And this is compounded if and when my opponents see that I have a black-light hand, and blow up that land accordingly.
Thus I am wary about cutting even more black sources.
Calm down, kid (you'll have a heart attack).
So, if I follow your lead, just people who win GP or PT are good players ?
That's not a lot of people ...
I've made my first Day 2 at GP and my first Pro Points some years ago, the hard way (with no Bye at this moment), with Jund which is the only deck I've played for the last 4 years (exception for GP Lyon, last month, during which I've played 5c Good Stuff for a 4-2 into 8-2 into 8-7 => I'm definitively not the best player of the world)
So, I just say it's sad to see so many players piloting my beloved deck which used to be based on skill and knowledge.
That's just my opinion and you don't have to be agree with me (it's called "democracy")
Gus
That is a valid point, and my opinion has not changed regarding that. I think 18 black sources is way better than only 17. With 25 lands, you have to make a couple of decisions: Do you want to flood less? Then 5 manlands is a good way to mitigate that. Do you want more black sources? Then maybe only play 4 manlands and include a 18th black source is a good idea. But then you would flood more.
One easy way to avoid this is trying out 24 lands with a lower curve. Thats what I am on currently, because I value the 18 black source as a minimum quite highly personally. If I would take it really seriously, actually 19 sources is needed for over 90 % consistancy.
If you going for 25 lands, want to mitigate flooding and still want to play 18 black sources, maybe this is a valid idea:
4 Bloodstained Mire
4 Blackcleave Cliffs
3 Raging Ravine
2 Treetop Village
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Blood Crypt
1 Stomping Ground
2 Swamp
1 Forest
1 Twilight Mire
If you still want 4 basics, then maybe a third swamp is a good idea to run instead of Twilight Mire. In reality though, its tough to fulfill all requirements. You always have to sacrifice something in order to incoorporate other stuff.
I ran the 24 land, 12 1-cmc spell build tonight at an event and I gotta say I dislike it now. In 8 games, I failed to hit 4 lands on turn 4 on 3 of them. That's almost 50% of the time and IMO unacceptable if BBE is needed to swing games. Not to mention that Scooze requires more lands in order to do its dirty business. I was always an advocate for 24 lands as I am greedy for more interaction but tonight I got punished by mana bottlenecks.
I am right back on 25 lands for now.
I think there's a few of us here the beauty of Jund in modern is that the cards are playable and good in all formats. So they'll be around for a long time. There's also no need to rush because modern is eternal. The investment is probably more sound than foiling most decks.
It's a long and hard journey; and in the end, foils play the same as non-foils. If you view the cards as JUST cards, I'd say just keep it non-foiled. If you're questioning if you should foil it out, you probably shouldn't.
I'm curious about the reason to ask this question. If you have a debate about foiling a very very very expensive deck out, don't do it. Foiling is entirely a money sink for no reason whatsoever beyond personal enjoyment of spending a lot of money on cards.
Interesting. That seems much faster than my method would be. I just stick two foils in a sleeve back-to-back and stick them in a cooler/refrigerator for a while with some sort of dehumidifying agent. The idea of applying heat never occurred to me as being safe.
I like Bloodbraid Elf, but I gotta say, I have been thinking that we don't necessarily want four of them or that we should change the deck to be far more aggressive. I feel like the current versions are a bastard child of two different schools of thought.
That said, I don't mind that Jund has become popular again. I think people just find Bloodbraid Elf interesting. It may even be that RG decks are just more popular in general because of it instead of just Jund. That said, the number of questionable plays I've seen is kind of crazy. Some of it I believe is due to adjustments in a new metagame so not everyone is going to see things the same way. That said, I can understand why you feel frustrated. Sometimes, people get caught up too deep in thoughts that don't matter or just miss the obvious. It's just a strange time right now.
For most of the time that I have played Magic, I have detested foils. I know when it happened (still don't know why), but I just decided that I love Jund and Jeskai tempo so much that I started picking up random foils of them when I could. As some might point out, there's really no rational reason to do this. I just did because I don't see me not playing Jund or Jeskai ever again. I've played it in fields chock full of Eldrazi and E-Tron (even got lucky at a PPTQ!). If you do choose to foil it out though, wait for reasonable prices if you're straight up buying them, such as when Modern is out of season. You could also sell off other stuff via facebook, tcgplayer and ebay to convert other stuff you don't use towards getting the foils you want. Either way, it's going to be a while. I wouldn't rush it. Personally it's taken me about five years, and that was with some luck on some collections I bought.
I don't think playing less than 4 copies is right. And I also don't think we need to adjust the deck to be more aggressive. If you look at Legacy Jund lists, you also won't find many aggressive elements in it. I know you can't compare the two, but you can definitely depict that the card in a vacuum doesn't demand aggressive support.
BBE is just the best card in so many matchups for us. Admitted against aggro/combo we dont want necessarily 4 copies, but we can adjust after SB. And if the meta starts to be aggro/combo only, then sure, it will be smart to go down on BBE copies.
But I like the appraoch EctoMark has addressed so far. Just be the Jund deck like we used to be all the time and have BBE as great CA engine which can also help closing out games. I did think from beginning on that doing drastic changes to the Jund deck due to BBE is not the best starting point to test. Besides the obvious changes (going up in Bolts and making room for BBE) I think just jamming in 4 BBEs turned out to be a pretty solid strategy, as opposed to some other opinions. In that sense, maybe it feels like a hybrid now, but if it works, why not?
I play Legacy Jund. Trying to compare both lists is interesting and bad at the same time. There was a time recently where Bloodbraid Elf was cut from the main deck or some number were moved to the sideboard because it wasn't hefting it's weight.
To answer your last question: Personally, it's because I don't want and am not comfortable with "variance" from the "best" card in my deck.
So BBE hasnt been great for you on average? I know there is variance, but, for me, if the average is a little bit over the top and the worst case is just a hasty 3/2 creature it probably can still trade 1-for-1 (which is the baseline for our deck) I am more than happy. In that sense variance reaches from ok to insane. Also to add, we should not just use BBE as answers for opponents threats, unless we are in a desperate position and need a specific card to turn things around. In that sense the variance is also not very bothering, if you just don't rely on the cascade card too much.
It's no more variance than a draw a card effect.
Probably, none of us have personal gameplay experience with a statistically significant sample size to say whether 24 or 25 lands are correct for BBE Jund. There's just no way to pull that kind of signal out of the variance noise, with a sample size of fewer than thousands of games. It's probably also worth mentioning that 3/8 is 37.5%, far closer to 1/3 than it is to 1/2. It is not correct (though it is totally understandable) to draw conclusions from one night's experience.
Frank Karsten has done the best work on this, as I'm sure most of us have heard. He can quantify--and has quantified--for us the chance that we'll play land #4 on T4. According to his data from his particular experimental conditions, the odds are:
Add to this the fastland/tapland effect. In a 25 land build, a land you draw has a 4% chance to be any one of your specific land cards. If you run nine total T4 CIPT (comes into play tapped on T4) lands, then you have a base 8% higher chance to topdeck a land that doesn't help you on T4, compared to running the same list but only seven T4 CIPT lands. (Yes I get that 8% is actually incorrect but I am shortcutting here.) You can balance the types of lands you run against the number of lands you run, to get to your own target likelihood of landing BBE on turn 4.
The way I think one makes a case here, is to consider the data provided by large and carefully gathered data sets. All told, you could arguably change your odds of playing a BBE on T4 (assuming you have it in hand of course!) by roughly one game in every eight by going from one extreme (24 lands with nine T4 CIPT lands, which nobody actually runs) to the other (25 lands with seven T4 CIPT lands--nobody actually runs this either). Anyone who is between these extremes is making changes that definitely matter, for sure. But they are not making changes that will show up at FNM, or even more than once or twice during a 15 round GP.